9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 1195 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyResolution Professionals seeking peaceful handover of property - Section 25(2)(a) of I B Code - HELD THAT - It is very clear that the Respondents are not co-operating with the RP and therefore, we direct the Respondents to co-operate with the RP in handing over the property to him. After going through the documents, it is clear that the property is the asset of the Corporate Debtor over which the Respondents have a possession which is needed to be handed over to the RP. The RP is directed to obtain the possession at the earliest and is at a liberty to take assistance from the local police if at all needed. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues:
Interlocutory Application filed by Resolution Professional against Suspended Board of Directors for non-cooperation and failure to hand over assets of the Corporate Debtor. Analysis: 1. The Resolution Professional (RP) filed an Interlocutory Application against the Suspended Board of Directors for not handing over the assets of the Corporate Debtor. The RP was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional and later confirmed as the Resolution Professional by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) after the admission of a Company Petition under Section 7 by a Financial Creditor. 2. The RP's counsel argued that the Respondents were allowed to continue in their positions to facilitate the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. However, after approval from the CoC, the RP terminated the services of the Respondents and requested them to hand over all documents, assets, and premises of the Corporate Debtor. Despite multiple reminders, the Respondents resisted handing over the assets. 3. The RP invoked Section 25(2)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, stating that it is his duty to take custody and control of all assets to preserve and protect them. The RP repeatedly requested the Respondents to hand over a bungalow still in their possession, even threatening legal action for non-cooperation. 4. The Respondents submitted a consolidated reply alleging the RP's failure to perform duties and questioning the Corporate Insolvency Resolution (CIR) process. They requested reconsideration of the Resolution Plan and opposed the company's liquidation. 5. After hearing arguments and reviewing documents, the Tribunal found allegations and counter-allegations between the RP and the Suspended Board of Directors. The CoC's commercial wisdom directed the RP to file for liquidation, which is pending, despite the Respondents' plea to consider the Resolution Plan. 6. The Tribunal noted the lack of cooperation from the Respondents and directed them to cooperate with the RP in handing over the property promptly. The property was identified as a Corporate Debtor asset and needed to be returned to the RP, who was authorized to seek assistance from local authorities if necessary. 7. The Tribunal partly allowed the Interlocutory Application, instructing the Suspended Board of Directors to cooperate with the RP in completing the CIR Process. Failure to comply could result in informing the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to take action against the Directors. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal proceedings, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's findings and directives regarding the non-cooperation of the Suspended Board of Directors with the Resolution Professional in handing over the assets of the Corporate Debtor.
|
